Propaganda is the staple of all governments, just like it is for big corporations, one for power another for profit, and most of the times in the end only for profit in all cases. But the difference between propaganda by a corporation and by the Jammu and Kashmir government is that the latter rarely uses facts, or when it does the main purpose is to use them in such twisted contexts that it amounts to outright lying. Take for example what has been happening since the present state government took charge. Be it the sainik colonies, special enclaves for Kashmiri Pandits desirous of returning home or the new industrial policy. In all the cases the government has chosen to use half truths, contextual dishonesty and obfuscation. The words and language used in the government propaganda is expected by spin doctor politicians and those in authority to mean all things to all the people.
The best truth, or the best lie, depending upon who is talking and who is listening is that both the coalition partners, the Peoples Democratic Party and the Bharatiya Janata Party, claim they are for protection and preservation of the disputed state’s special status within the Indian union. The PDP wallas sound hollow when their pronouncements are examined through their deeds, and the BJP walls sound the same when examined through their rhetoric. The government first said the new industrial policy drafted during the short period of Governor’s rule – while the incumbent chief minister was buying time in the hope of being seen differently than what her party’s alliance with the right wing ruling party at New Delhi was when Mufit Mohammad Sayeed struck it – would be amended. It promised the clause that made for the non state subjects to develop industrial units in the state (in gross violation of the state subject law) would be reviewed/changed. But while some change may have been thought about but the same was not implemented, perhaps for tacitly giving an opportunity to some outsiders to secure a foothold, as was reveled in the state legislative house.
The same tactic has been regularly used in the other two issues concerning land use that has the potential to affect far reaching change by precedent as opposed to by law. Just like sometimes a lie repeated a thousand times tends to become a truth, precedence of land use can also create conditions under which the overlooked precedence after due course of time can creep into the realm of law. Resistance, from across the spectrum, including trade and business, should flag the use of precedence over law as a means to yield the integrationist goals of the power dispensation and call for reversal of the incremental reverses in the long and continuing process of loss of sovereignty.